Some remarks on lengths of propositional proofs
Article
Received:
- 70 Downloads
- 8 Citations
Abstract
We survey the best known lower bounds on symbols and lines in Frege and extended Frege proofs. We prove that in minimum length sequent calculus proofs, no formula is generated twice or used twice on any single branch of the proof. We prove that the number of distinct subformulas in a minimum length Frege proof is linearly bounded by the number of lines. Depthd Frege proofs ofm lines can be transformed into depthd proofs ofO(md+1) symbols. We show that renaming Frege proof systems are p-equivalent to extended Frege systems. Some open problems in propositional proof length and in logical flow graphs are discussed.
Mathematics Subject Classification
03F20 03F01 03B05Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Bonet, M.L.: Number of symbols in Frege proofs with and without the deduction rule. In: Clote, P., Krajíček, J. (eds.) Arithmetic, Proof Theory and Computational Complexity, pp. 61–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1993Google Scholar
- 2.Bonet, M.L., Buss, S.R.: The deduction rule and linear and near-linear proof simulations. J. Symb. Logic58, 688–709 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 3.Buss, S.R.: Polynomial size proofs of the propositional pigeonhole principle. J. Symb. Logic52, 916–927 (1987)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 4.Buss, S.R.: The undecidability ofk-provability. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic53, 75–102 (1991)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 5.Buss, S.R.: On Gödel’s theorems on lengths of proofs II: Lower bounds for recognizingk symbol provability. In: Clote, P., Remmel, J. (eds.) Feasible Mathematics vol. II, pp. 57–90 Boston: Birkhäuser 1995Google Scholar
- 6.Buss, S.R., et al.: Weak formal systems and connections to computational complexity. Student-written Lecture Notes for a Topics Course at U.C. Berkeley, January–May (1988)Google Scholar
- 7.Cejtin, G., Čubarjan, A.: On some bounds to the lengths of logical proofs in classical propositional calculus (Russian). Trudy Vyčisl. Centra AN ArmSSR i Erevan. Univ.8, 57–64 (1975)Google Scholar
- 8.Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.A.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symb. Logic44, 36–50 (1979)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 9.Dowd, M.: Model-theoretic aspects ofP ≠NP. Typewritten manuscript (1985)Google Scholar
- 10.Krajíček, J.: On the number of steps in proofs. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic41, 153–178 (1989)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 11.Krajíček, J.: Speed-up for propositional Frege systems via generalizations of proofs. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae30, 137–140 (1989)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 12.Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P.: Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first-order theories and the complexity of computations, J. Symb. Logic54, 1063–1079 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P., Woods, A.: Exponential lower bound to the size of bounded depth Frege proofs of the pigeonhole principle. Random Struct. Algorithms (to appear)Google Scholar
- 14.Pitassi, T., Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R.: Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle. Comput. Complex.3, 97–140 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 15.Reckhow, R.A.: On the lengths of proofs in the propositional calculus. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Technical Report #87 (1976)Google Scholar
- 16.Statman, R.: Complexity of derivations from quantifier-free Horn formulae, mechanical introduction of explicit definitions, and refinement of completeness theorems. In: Logic Colloquium ’76, pp. 505–517. Amsterdam: North Holland 1977Google Scholar
- 17.Takeuti, G.: Proof Theory, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1987Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag 1995